Eldar, Farseers and why I am in awe of them....aww :)

[eldargal]

There is nothing wrong with using SCs, the problem is when you start to rely on their special abilities in your lists to thepoint you exclude other HQs choices. Then it has become a crutch, and sadly it tends to happen quite easily.

[Hive Mind]

Is it then a 'crutch' to use a Chaplain to get re-rolled hits on the charge? Is it a crutch to use a Tervigon to get FnP? Surely most units are selected for their abilities, special or otherwise?

I only rarely use SCs also but my reluctance is because I'm a fluff-junkie. I never really got the 'crutch' argument. No offence intended, but it always seemed to me to just be an excuse to be a bit snobby about someone else's army.

[eldargal]

No, because I'm thinking more along the lines of army wide abilities not just unit special abilities. So Eldrads ability to cast three powers a turn and his ability to reposition units, Duke Sliscus' extra drug roll, Imotekh's seize the initiative and night fighting rules etc. You often see perfectly good SCs without abilities like this labelled as overcosted or useless (Lelith Hesperax, for example). As I said there is nothing wrong with using them but when you begin to rely on them then you are beginning to stunt your tactical growth.

I'm not saying you shouldn't use SCs if you want too, obviously people can use whatever they like and themed armies are great. The problem is when people start relying on SCs to get the job done, as you see in many Eldar tactica threads where someone nearly always says 'take Eldrad'.

[Hive Mind]

Fair enough, that makes sense.

[bloodflow]

No, because I'm thinking more along the lines of army wide abilities not just unit special abilities. So Eldrads ability to cast three powers a turn and his ability to reposition units, Duke Sliscus' extra drug roll, Imotekh's seize the initiative and night fighting rules etc. You often see perfectly good SCs without abilities like this labelled as overcosted or useless (Lelith Hesperax, for example). As I said there is nothing wrong with using them but when you begin to rely on them then you are beginning to stunt your tactical growth.

I'm not saying you shouldn't use SCs if you want too, obviously people can use whatever they like and themed armies are great. The problem is when people start relying on SCs to get the job done, as you see in many Eldar tactica threads where someone nearly always says 'take Eldrad'.

So, when a person builds a list there is not a unit that they rely on? There is not a unit that might be a lynchpin to their force? If they build their army around a theme that their codex provides, does that stunt their tactical growth? For example, a mech gurad player that always take a 2-3 Plas-Russ, always, does not matter what little changes they make to their overall list. They are always there. (Mostly due to the meta-game). Or the other guard player that has his aerial stkike force of Vendetta/Valkryies. They rely on these units for something.

It really bothers me when I go to tournaments, and half the crowd is complaining that this person is" hero-hammering", or, "oh...another net list...how original". They are not normally gracious winners or losers. I also find that people that tend to use these SC's are the "newer" players. People that started playing around 4th ed. At least, around my area it is like that. In older editions I learned that SC's couldnt be taken unless the army was a certain amount of points. The game has changed, and I say embrace the people that play SC's, but teach them the merits of playing other ways. Looking at these newer codicies, that is the way most armies are going to go, and newer and some older players are going to be using SC's.

[eldargal]

Like with SCs there is nothing wrong with building a list around a special unit, however if that is the only list you play with then your tactical growth is stunted. If you lose that unit to bad dice rolls, will you be able to recover? Units are, however, a different issue entirely as they seldom have army-wide or game-changing abilities and are rarely unique.

If someone feels they have to take, say, Long Fangs, to win a game simply because they are an extremely strong unit then I would say they have stunted their tactical growth. I favour Howling Banshees, for example, but I don't take them in every game I play. Hell I favour farseers and I don't take them in every game I play either, despite it being perfeclty fluffy. As I've siad, the issue isn't with people taking these units, it is with them coming to rely on them at the expense of other choices.

[scadugenga]

I play with and without SC's, but to call them a "crutch" is a little unfair. I have only been playing for 4-5 years, and really only have played Eldar. Some lists I use SC's, some I don't, but I believe I get the nitty gritty of playing Eldar. Now, I cant speak from a whole lot of experience, but I am sure the game was a lot different 10, 15, 20 years ago. I dont know if SC's had the same type of impact back then like they do now. But to call a player, tactically deficient, because he/she is using a "crutch" is a tad harsh.

M'lady Doctor Eldargal has carried the torch quite successfully in fleshing out the reasoning behind the "crutch" of relying o'ermuch on SC's--Eldrad particularly for the Eldar, so I won't repeat the same things (one hopes.)

SC's in 5th edition, specifically with Space Marines, has grown to be less a game about the self-described standard template HQ unit (Space marine captain, Autarch, Archon, etc) and more about the SC.

Most of them are overpowered and under-priced for what they do. Specifically the ones who give you an army wide bennie.

Thus--they are a crutch. They allow you to do more, for less, and that means the player does not have to think as hard, or develop tactical skills as much.

Great examples of this: Eldrad (even though he's a 4th ed SC), Vulkan, Logan, Draigo, Njall, Doom, Swarmlord, Baron, Duke, Creed...this list goes on and on.

They all provide ridiculous benefits for little, or less cost than the standard HQ unit they are meant to replace.

Prior to 4th edition--SC's had to have your opponents permission to be used, or you were stuck.

If you doubt the benefit (and crutch) they can be--look at the ETC--where their use is unilaterally banned.


Edit: Re: personal unit choice: It's not nearly the impact that a SC can have, and can't rightly be called a "crutch." EG prefers Banshees. I'm a Scorpion guy. My buddy is big into Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. That's more theme and fluff than anything else.

There is nothing wrong with using the odd SC now and again--but to only use an SC--there's your crutch.

[Anggul]

The thing with taking Eldrad is that he is always the same rather high points cost. By taking a Farseer with runes of warding, spirit stones, fortune, doom and mind war, I'm paying for the powers I want, which means I have 45pts more to spend elsewhere, and all I lose out on is having the extra power per turn and the little redeployment. Being a Biel-Tan army, it's all aspect warriors so doom is always better than guide due to their BS4 (the only exception is if my Dark Reaper exarch decides to blind-fire, and I'm not paying 20pts and using a power a turn just for that).

I have an Ulthwe army in the works which, of course, includes him, but just because it's an Ulthwe army, and I didn't feel right not using him at least occasionally, him being the big daddy and all.